While looking in the trunk, troopers opened a factory compartment on the side wall and found a plastic bag with two kilogram-sized packages wrapped in clear packaging tape and red tape. Cruz told police the packages were soap she made, but field tests showed the white powdery substance was cocaine, records say.

Yes, because people store soap in the side compartments of their vehicles.

I read that as soup. The first three times the word was there. I was really quite confused.

/bedtimeAlso, stopping someone for 60 in a 55, WTF? I see people with PA plates going at least 15 mph over all the time up here across the NY border. Nice to know the courtesy of ignoring it is not reciprocated.

ladyfortuna:I read that as soup. The first three times the word was there. I was really quite confused.

/bedtimeAlso, stopping someone for 60 in a 55, WTF? I see people with PA plates going at least 15 mph over all the time up here across the NY border. Nice to know the courtesy of ignoring it is not reciprocated.

The NSA knew when/where/what they'd be transporting, and notified the locals.

fusillade762:Cruz, 26, said there were no drugs in the car and gave police permission to search it

This always makes me facepalm. Why do people consent to searches when they have drugs on them?

Not giving consent to search is extremely suspicious. They probably thought their hiding compartment was good enough.

When I was 16 or 17 the cops pulled me over for no particular reason. Asked to search my car. I said "no, I have somewhere to be." They said my refusal to consent to a search was probably cause for a search. Tore the shiat out of my car. Didn't find anything, because I don't transport drugs in my car.

Many years later the Supreme Court ruled that refusal to search did not, in fact, constitute probable cause for a search. But I guarantee you cops still do it.

Came here to say something like that, but I wasn't going to be as witty.

How big is a kilogram?

m00:Many years later the Supreme Court ruled that refusal to search did not, in fact, constitute probable cause for a search. But I guarantee you cops still do it.

I've refused plenty of searches without being searched as a result. Cops seem to have gotten the memo, at least in my neck of the woods, and this is from all four agencies that patrol my area: CHP, Sac PD, Sac Sheriffs, and Los Rios Community College District cops.

ladyfortuna:I read that as soup. The first three times the word was there. I was really quite confused.

/bedtimeAlso, stopping someone for 60 in a 55, WTF? I see people with PA plates going at least 15 mph over all the time up here across the NY border. Nice to know the courtesy of ignoring it is not reciprocated.

m00:When I was 16 or 17 the cops pulled me over for no particular reason. Asked to search my car. I said "no, I have somewhere to be." They said my refusal to consent to a search was probably cause for a search. Tore the shiat out of my car. Didn't find anything, because I don't transport drugs in my car.

I've have cops ask, I say 'no'. They ask why, I say, 'you asked'. The reality is consenting to a search is open ended, you have no idea if they're going to look in the glove compartment and check under the seat, or if they are going to tear the car apart. If you say yes you assume all liability for what they do to your car.

Truth is, the cops were going to tear the shait out of your car whether you said yes, or no.

m00:fusillade762: Cruz, 26, said there were no drugs in the car and gave police permission to search it

This always makes me facepalm. Why do people consent to searches when they have drugs on them?

Not giving consent to search is extremely suspicious. They probably thought their hiding compartment was good enough.

When I was 16 or 17 the cops pulled me over for no particular reason. Asked to search my car. I said "no, I have somewhere to be." They said my refusal to consent to a search was probably cause for a search. Tore the shiat out of my car. Didn't find anything, because I don't transport drugs in my car.

Many years later the Supreme Court ruled that refusal to search did not, in fact, constitute probable cause for a search. But I guarantee you cops still do it.

You seem, iirc, to have a new on-topic cop encounter story for every thread.

gibbon1:m00: When I was 16 or 17 the cops pulled me over for no particular reason. Asked to search my car. I said "no, I have somewhere to be." They said my refusal to consent to a search was probably cause for a search. Tore the shiat out of my car. Didn't find anything, because I don't transport drugs in my car.

I've have cops ask, I say 'no'. They ask why, I say, 'you asked'. The reality is consenting to a search is open ended, you have no idea if they're going to look in the glove compartment and check under the seat, or if they are going to tear the car apart. If you say yes you assume all liability for what they do to your car.

Truth is, the cops were going to tear the shait out of your car whether you said yes, or no.

You can consent to specific parameters, both area and time limits, as well as choose to end your giving of permission at any time. If you meant the cops would just lie about those parameters, then you still mis-stated the 'reality' because those cops would just lie about you giving consent in the first place.

Consent to a search does not mean consent to them damaging anything.

Even in cases of border searches at the POE crossers have filed complaints and been compensated for damage done during searches, and customs agents require zero suspicion to send you to secondary and poke around. They still have to provide, by policy, suspicion to damage property.

Look idiots, it's very simple. ONE CRIME AT A TIME. It's short, it's catchy and it will prevent you from getting busted for a major crime because you get caught doing some unnecessary smaller one. One crime at a time.

Juan comes up to the Mexican border on his bicycle. He's got two large bags over his shoulders. The guard stops him and says, "What's in the bags?" "Sand," answered Juan.

The guard says, "We'll just see about that. Get off the bike." The guard detains Juan overnight and has the sand analyzed, only to discover that there is nothing but pure sand in the bags. He releases Juan and lets him cross the border.

A week later, the same thing happens. The guard asks, "What's in the bags?"

"Sand," says Juan.

The guard does his thorough examination and discovers that the bags contain nothing but sand. He gives the sand back to Juan, and Juan crosses the border on his bicycle.

This sequence of events is repeated every day for three years. Finally, Juan doesn't show up one day and the guard meets him in a Cantina in Mexico.

"Hey, Buddy," says the guard, "I know you are smuggling something. It's driving me crazy. It's all I think about...Just between you and me, what are you smuggling?"

jtown:ladyfortuna: I read that as soup. The first three times the word was there. I was really quite confused.

/bedtimeAlso, stopping someone for 60 in a 55, WTF? I see people with PA plates going at least 15 mph over all the time up here across the NY border. Nice to know the courtesy of ignoring it is not reciprocated.

The name's Cruz. That's DWB[rown] any day of the week.

All the more reason to obey local traffic laws if you're carrying a couple of kilos of coke.

Notabunny:Also, stopping someone for 60 in a 55, WTF? I see people with PA plates going at least 15 mph over all the time up here across the NY border. Nice to know the courtesy of ignoring it is not reciprocated.

The NSA knew when/where/what they'd be transporting, and notified the locals.

When the cops go straight to the stash they got the info from an informant, when they know it's in the car but they don't know where, they got it off of a wire.

Smackledorfer:m00: fusillade762: Cruz, 26, said there were no drugs in the car and gave police permission to search it

This always makes me facepalm. Why do people consent to searches when they have drugs on them?

Not giving consent to search is extremely suspicious. They probably thought their hiding compartment was good enough.

When I was 16 or 17 the cops pulled me over for no particular reason. Asked to search my car. I said "no, I have somewhere to be." They said my refusal to consent to a search was probably cause for a search. Tore the shiat out of my car. Didn't find anything, because I don't transport drugs in my car.

Many years later the Supreme Court ruled that refusal to search did not, in fact, constitute probable cause for a search. But I guarantee you cops still do it.

You seem, iirc, to have a new on-topic cop encounter story for every thread.

common sense is an oxymoron:jtown: ladyfortuna: I read that as soup. The first three times the word was there. I was really quite confused.

/bedtimeAlso, stopping someone for 60 in a 55, WTF? I see people with PA plates going at least 15 mph over all the time up here across the NY border. Nice to know the courtesy of ignoring it is not reciprocated.

The name's Cruz. That's DWB[rown] any day of the week.

All the more reason to obey local traffic laws if you're carrying a couple of kilos of coke.

Don't be naive. Driving exactly the speed limit = suspicious behavior. Driving 5 under = obstructing the flow of traffic. A cop can always find a reason to pull over anyone.

fusillade762:Cruz, 26, said there were no drugs in the car and gave police permission to search it

This always makes me facepalm. Why do people consent to searches when they have drugs on them?

My brother-in-law was stopped once, cops asked if they had permission to search his car; he refused. By his account, they essentially held him at the scene of the stop, refusing to either ticket him or let him leave, harassing him until he finally consented to a search. When he finally gave up and "consented" to have the car searched, they also patted him down and found the small amount of pot that he had on him, which he was then arrested for.

/knows there's not a single cop in that town that hasn't abused their power//not uncommon to see a cop throw on lights and siren when approaching a red light, then immediately turn them back off on the other side of the intersection///EVERY. INTERSECTION.

UseLessHuman:Look idiots, it's very simple. ONE CRIME AT A TIME. It's short, it's catchy and it will prevent you from getting busted for a major crime because you get caught doing some unnecessary smaller one. One crime at a time.

I got an idea for these guys, when they pulled over they should pull the "am I under arrest or free to go?" routine and the police will think "oh no, another one of these internet armchair lawyers...just get out of here, make sure to drive the speed limit next time". There seem to be enough of these "am I free to go" guys with their cameras these days and it's reached a point where you can pretend to be one of them and probably get away easily just to save them a headache.

phrawgh:Juan comes up to the Mexican border on his bicycle. He's got two large bags over his shoulders. The guard stops him and says, "What's in the bags?" "Sand," answered Juan.

The guard says, "We'll just see about that. Get off the bike." The guard detains Juan overnight and has the sand analyzed, only to discover that there is nothing but pure sand in the bags. He releases Juan and lets him cross the border.

A week later, the same thing happens. The guard asks, "What's in the bags?"

"Sand," says Juan.

The guard does his thorough examination and discovers that the bags contain nothing but sand. He gives the sand back to Juan, and Juan crosses the border on his bicycle.

This sequence of events is repeated every day for three years. Finally, Juan doesn't show up one day and the guard meets him in a Cantina in Mexico.

"Hey, Buddy," says the guard, "I know you are smuggling something. It's driving me crazy. It's all I think about...Just between you and me, what are you smuggling?"

Juan sips his beer and says, "Bicycles."

About a year later, this Arabic-looking guy comes up to the border on his bicycle with two large bags of sand over his shoulders.

The boarder guard immediately pushes him off his bicycle, puts a knee on his neck, and cuffs him while explaining that bicycle smuggling is illegal.

A young boarder guard runs up and asked how he recognized the bicycle smuggling operation.

ladyfortuna:I read that as soup. The first three times the word was there. I was really quite confused.

/bedtimeAlso, stopping someone for 60 in a 55, WTF? I see people with PA plates going at least 15 mph over all the time up here across the NY border. Nice to know the courtesy of ignoring it is not reciprocated.

I don't know why you think other states should have to put up with your bad drivers because your state does. I am not a fan of NY douchebags, however there is another point. She may have been a NY woman, but driving a Mercedes with Tennessee plates. It isn't just profiling out of state plate here, this is out of state plate doesn't match vehicle type profiling. I bet if it was a Saturn, she would not have been pulled over. Mercedes don't stick out in NY, but they would in TN. They stick out in MI, if you are in certain cities.

m00:fusillade762: Cruz, 26, said there were no drugs in the car and gave police permission to search it

This always makes me facepalm. Why do people consent to searches when they have drugs on them?

Not giving consent to search is extremely suspicious. They probably thought their hiding compartment was good enough.

When I was 16 or 17 the cops pulled me over for no particular reason. Asked to search my car. I said "no, I have somewhere to be." They said my refusal to consent to a search was probably cause for a search. Tore the shiat out of my car. Didn't find anything, because I don't transport drugs in my car.

Many years later the Supreme Court ruled that refusal to search did not, in fact, constitute probable cause for a search. But I guarantee you cops still do it.

If you don't consent don't they just hold you there and call in the drug sniffing dog?

Truther:m00: fusillade762: Cruz, 26, said there were no drugs in the car and gave police permission to search it

This always makes me facepalm. Why do people consent to searches when they have drugs on them?

Not giving consent to search is extremely suspicious. They probably thought their hiding compartment was good enough.

When I was 16 or 17 the cops pulled me over for no particular reason. Asked to search my car. I said "no, I have somewhere to be." They said my refusal to consent to a search was probably cause for a search. Tore the shiat out of my car. Didn't find anything, because I don't transport drugs in my car.

Many years later the Supreme Court ruled that refusal to search did not, in fact, constitute probable cause for a search. But I guarantee you cops still do it.

If you don't consent don't they just hold you there and call in the drug sniffing dog?

Does it ever make you wonder if some of those dogs may be trained to alert on command and not when it finds drugs? I do.

I understand they have to pass a test to be a certified drug sniffing dog and handler, but what would stop the handler from teaching another command on the side?

Just imagine the first officer saying: Fred, I really want to search this car.

Truther:If you don't consent don't they just hold you there and call in the drug sniffing dog?

It really just depends. That was always my assumption, but my pot head cousin has been pulled over and asked to search his car multiple times, every time he has said no, and they've just left and let him on his way.

It probably comes down to them not wanting to go through the trouble to bust a guy for a joint, but if they think you have hard drugs or are an actual trafficker then you're shiat out of luck.

I saw a white person driving a shiny red BMW X5 with New Mexico plates in the wrong part of Manassas, Virginia a few weeks ago. I highly doubt the cops would let that person go without a full search...